The second meeting of the
Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety opened in Montreal,
Canada, on Monday, 20 February 2006. In the morning and afternoon sessions, delegates convened in the Plenary to consider the review of information and
analysis of issues and elaboration of options for elements of rules and procedures referred to in Biosafety Protocol Article 27, including effectiveness criteria; functional scope
and geographical scope; and the definition of damage.

On
Monday morning, Co-Chair Jimena Nieto (Colombia) opened the 2nd meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended
Working Group on liability and redress in the context
of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, hoping that
the meeting would be able to report good progress to
MOP3.

Olivier
Jalbert, speaking on behalf of Ahmed Djoghlaf,
CBD Executive
Secretary, highlighted that the Working Group is
addressing novel aspects of liability and redress and
its deliberations can make an important contribution
to international law.

Anne
Daniel (Canada) reported on the meeting of the group of legal and
technical experts on liability and redress in the
context of article 14.2 of CBD, held in October 2005,
in Montreal,
Canada.

EFFECTIVENESS
CRITERIA:

Delegates
considered effectiveness criteria for any rules and
procedures referred to in Protocol Article 27.

New
Zealand,
stressed the need for agreement on effectiveness
criteria to be put forward at MOP3.

Above photo: Sarah Wynn-Williams (New Zealand)

The
US
said useful criteria for analyzing effectiveness might
include: clear understanding of the type and scope of
activities covered; clear definition of the scope of
damage covered; easy national implementation of rules
and procedures; incentives that ensure cautious and
carefully managed transboundary movements; and liability
assigned to individuals causing harm.

Above photo: JP Passino (US)

Austria,
on behalf of the European Union (EU), said developing
a liability regime should be a two-stage process,
noting that a non-binding instrument could be
developed, which, after review, could be followed by a
legally binding instrument.

Above photo: Thomas Loidl (Austria on behalf of
the EU)

Switzerland,
noted a liability regime is effective when enforced but
not needed, and said the proposed two-stage process must
be resolved at the outset.

Above photo: Jürg Bally (Switzerland)

Senegal said the liability regime should be legally
binding.

Above photo: Papa Méïsa Dieng (Senegal)

Brazilsaid that effectiveness criteria should include
preventive measures.

Above photo: Marcela Nicodemos (Brazil)

Australia
said that criteria must be supported by a significant
number of Parties.

Above photo: Julie Dowdle (Australia)

Global
Industry Coalition emphasized that damage must be
clearly defined.

Above photo: Doris Ponzoni (Global Industry
Coalition)

Greenpeace
International said elements for effectiveness criteria
should include broad definition of scope, a back-up
fund, clear rules on burden of proof and standing, and
rules and procedure on compensation beyond national
jurisdiction.

Above photo: Duncan Currie (Greenpeace
International)

FUNCTIONAL
SCOPE OF DAMAGE:

Participants
addressed the functional scope of damage resulting from
transboundary movements of living modified organisms based
on the co-chairs’ synthesis of proposed texts and views on
approaches, options and issues identified pertaining to
liability and redress in the context of Protocol Article 27.

Burkina
Faso
with others supported the broader option to include
damage resulting from transport, transit, handling
and/or use of LMOs that finds its origin in
transboundary movements, as well as unintentional
transboundary movements of LMOs.

Above photo: Zourata Lompo Ouedraogo (Burkina
Faso)

Canada
highlighted that the functional scope should be
consistent with Article 27 and only cover damage
resulting from transport of LMOs, including transit.

Above photo: Desmond Mahon (Canada)

OPTIONAL
COMPONENTS FOR GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE:

Participants
also considered optional components for geographical scope
focusing on three options identified in the co-chairs’
synthesis: damage caused in areas within the limits of
national jurisdiction or control of Parties; damage caused
in areas within the limits of national jurisdiction or
control of non-Parties; and damage caused in areas beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction or control of States.

Palau
proposed retaining the option on damage caused in
areas within the limits of national jurisdiction or
control of non-Parties, emphasizing that also
non-Parties must handle LMO shipments with care.

Above photo: Jeffrey Beattie (Palau)

Norway
cautioned that this might discourage non-Parties from
ratifying the Protocol.

Above photo: Beate Bergluno Ekeberg (Norway)

Co-Chair
René Lefeber (the
Netherlands
) asked States supporting option of "control of
non-Parties" to consider how this option could be
implemented, in particular who could present claims on
behalf of areas beyond national jurisdiction.